Two dogs killed & two women injured

[Anonymous]

What is that saying again? Hit dog will holler...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

And it derails any sensible conversation about practices that WOULD reduce bite incidents, like more thorough licensing requirements for owners and breeders, higher penalties for off-leash and uncontrolled dogs (of any breed), better basic dog handling information and classes, more animal control officers to monitor all the idiots who think their dogs can be off-leash anywhere, as long as there's nobody already there...

We can't have actual conversations and make plans to implement those strategies because anytime we try, some anti-pit bully will come on the thread and start screaming hysterically about "bloodthirsty beasts OMG!11" and derail the whole thread with made up statistics and links to clickbait "news".

The "news" on this article says it's a pitbull without any formal citation. Why? Because "pit bull attack" generates revenue. But nobody wants to look at how gullible they are, why that works, and how they're complicit in the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

It is possible to track the number of people who are killed by dogs, per year. And in general, the attacking dog is known rather than unknown, and their breed is reasonably obvious. Sometimes it is a mutt. Oftentimes it is a breed, purebred or mix.

[Anonymous]

And now someone will say I'm "unhinged" and "probably a pit-bull owner".

It's the most predictable forum on the entire board, and the anti-pit trope is almost as tired as larlo/larla (but not nearly as entertaining as burgundy washcloths)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

And it derails any sensible conversation about practices that WOULD reduce bite incidents, like more thorough licensing requirements for owners and breeders, higher penalties for off-leash and uncontrolled dogs (of any breed), better basic dog handling information and classes, more animal control officers to monitor all the idiots who think their dogs can be off-leash anywhere, as long as there's nobody already there...

We can't have actual conversations and make plans to implement those strategies because anytime we try, some anti-pit bully will come on the thread and start screaming hysterically about "bloodthirsty beasts OMG!11" and derail the whole thread with made up statistics and links to clickbait "news".

The "news" on this article says it's a pitbull without any formal citation. Why? Because "pit bull attack" generates revenue. But nobody wants to look at how gullible they are, why that works, and how they're complicit in the problem.

Talk about derailing the conversation. None of those things will happen, and when you advocate for them, you are basically dodging the issue. So what's left? Just screaming that pitties are sweet dogs! That's all that's left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

And it derails any sensible conversation about practices that WOULD reduce bite incidents, like more thorough licensing requirements for owners and breeders, higher penalties for off-leash and uncontrolled dogs (of any breed), better basic dog handling information and classes, more animal control officers to monitor all the idiots who think their dogs can be off-leash anywhere, as long as there's nobody already there...

We can't have actual conversations and make plans to implement those strategies because anytime we try, some anti-pit bully will come on the thread and start screaming hysterically about "bloodthirsty beasts OMG!11" and derail the whole thread with made up statistics and links to clickbait "news".

The "news" on this article says it's a pitbull without any formal citation. Why? Because "pit bull attack" generates revenue. But nobody wants to look at how gullible they are, why that works, and how they're complicit in the problem.

?? You’re really claiming that news orgs are reporting pit bull attacks to make money?? Or are you insane?? Talk about complicit. Something is seriously wrong with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

And it derails any sensible conversation about practices that WOULD reduce bite incidents, like more thorough licensing requirements for owners and breeders, higher penalties for off-leash and uncontrolled dogs (of any breed), better basic dog handling information and classes, more animal control officers to monitor all the idiots who think their dogs can be off-leash anywhere, as long as there's nobody already there...

We can't have actual conversations and make plans to implement those strategies because anytime we try, some anti-pit bully will come on the thread and start screaming hysterically about "bloodthirsty beasts OMG!11" and derail the whole thread with made up statistics and links to clickbait "news".

The "news" on this article says it's a pitbull without any formal citation. Why? Because "pit bull attack" generates revenue. But nobody wants to look at how gullible they are, why that works, and how they're complicit in the problem.

?? You’re really claiming that news orgs are reporting pit bull attacks to make money?? Or are you insane?? Talk about complicit. Something is seriously wrong with you.

Are you new to the internet? Do you know what "clickbait" means? Or do you honestly think the sensationalize articles without supportive citation are #trufax just because you read them on the internet?

Trying to get a sense of what kind of stupid I'm up against...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

And it derails any sensible conversation about practices that WOULD reduce bite incidents, like more thorough licensing requirements for owners and breeders, higher penalties for off-leash and uncontrolled dogs (of any breed), better basic dog handling information and classes, more animal control officers to monitor all the idiots who think their dogs can be off-leash anywhere, as long as there's nobody already there...

We can't have actual conversations and make plans to implement those strategies because anytime we try, some anti-pit bully will come on the thread and start screaming hysterically about "bloodthirsty beasts OMG!11" and derail the whole thread with made up statistics and links to clickbait "news".

The "news" on this article says it's a pitbull without any formal citation. Why? Because "pit bull attack" generates revenue. But nobody wants to look at how gullible they are, why that works, and how they're complicit in the problem.

?? You’re really claiming that news orgs are reporting pit bull attacks to make money?? Or are you insane?? Talk about complicit. Something is seriously wrong with you.

Are you new to the internet? Do you know what "clickbait" means? Or do you honestly think the sensationalize articles without supportive citation are #trufax just because you read them on the internet?

Trying to get a sense of what kind of stupid I'm up against...

I worked in news for a decade, so yes, I know. No news org is doing that, sorry

[Anonymous]

The Pit Bull breed is statistically associated with the highest number of fatal dog attacks in the United States. According to studies and reports from organizations like DogsBite.org and CDC data, Pit Bulls are responsible for the majority of fatal attacks on humans, often accounting for 60-70% of dog-related fatalities annually, despite making up a smaller percentage of the dog population.

Other breeds that have been involved in fatal attacks include:
• Rottweilers
• German Shepherds
• Huskies
• Mastiffs
• American Bulldogs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

And it derails any sensible conversation about practices that WOULD reduce bite incidents, like more thorough licensing requirements for owners and breeders, higher penalties for off-leash and uncontrolled dogs (of any breed), better basic dog handling information and classes, more animal control officers to monitor all the idiots who think their dogs can be off-leash anywhere, as long as there's nobody already there...

We can't have actual conversations and make plans to implement those strategies because anytime we try, some anti-pit bully will come on the thread and start screaming hysterically about "bloodthirsty beasts OMG!11" and derail the whole thread with made up statistics and links to clickbait "news".

The "news" on this article says it's a pitbull without any formal citation. Why? Because "pit bull attack" generates revenue. But nobody wants to look at how gullible they are, why that works, and how they're complicit in the problem.

I’m the PP above. WTF is a ‘formal citation’ in a news piece? I’m waiting to hear this one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

It would reduce maulings and fatal attacks by much more!!!

[Anonymous]

Pit bulls are subject to various restrictions and bans worldwide due to concerns about their potential for aggression. These regulations, known as breed-specific legislation (BSL), vary by country and region.

International Bans and Restrictions:
• United Kingdom: Under the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, the ownership, breeding, sale, and exchange of American Pit Bull Terriers are prohibited. 
• Canada (Ontario): The province enforces a ban on pit bulls, including American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and any dogs with similar characteristics. 
• Australia: Pit bulls are restricted, with regulations varying by state. Generally, importation is banned, and existing dogs must be desexed, microchipped, and comply with specific containment rules. 
• New Zealand: Importing pit bulls is prohibited, and ownership is regulated under the Dog Control Act, requiring muzzling in public and mandatory neutering. 
• France: Pit bulls are classified as dangerous dogs, with strict regulations on ownership, including mandatory sterilization, muzzling in public, and restrictions on importation. 
• Germany: Several states enforce bans or restrictions on pit bulls, often requiring special permits, mandatory sterilization, and adherence to strict handling rules. 
• Denmark: Pit bulls are among 13 breeds banned in the country, with ownership, breeding, and importation prohibited. 
• Brazil: Some municipalities have enacted bans or restrictions on pit bulls, including mandatory muzzling and leash requirements in public spaces. 

United States:

In the U.S., there is no federal ban on pit bulls. However, numerous municipalities and counties have implemented breed-specific legislation. For example, Miami-Dade County in Florida has enforced a ban on pit bulls for over 30 years. 

Conversely, some states have laws prohibiting breed-specific legislation, preventing local governments from enacting such bans. These states include California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. 

Recent Developments:

In 2023, the United Kingdom announced plans to ban the American Bully XL, a breed related to pit bulls, following a series of attacks. 

[Anonymous]

To the folks wanting to end the five pitbull breeds: if they could be eradicated somehow, the folks who turn these dogs into killers will just find other breeds to train into killers. Problem not solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the folks wanting to end the five pitbull breeds: if they could be eradicated somehow, the folks who turn these dogs into killers will just find other breeds to train into killers. Problem not solved.

Not exactly. Look at their heads and jaw structure. My dachshund is never going to be as deadly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the folks wanting to end the five pitbull breeds: if they could be eradicated somehow, the folks who turn these dogs into killers will just find other breeds to train into killers. Problem not solved.

Not exactly. Look at their heads and jaw structure. My dachshund is never going to be as deadly

https://nypost.com/2018/05/16/pack-of-wiener-dogs-mauls-woman-to-death/